The relative intensity (RI) is the percentage of the average weight of the bar compared to the one repetition maximum (1RM) of an exercise. This parameter characterizes the relative degree of stress the body experiences when performing exercises, regardless of body weight, skill, and strength of the athlete.

Boris analyzed the training load of world champions (n=38) from 1993 to 2013 and found that the greatest increase in strength was achieved with an average relative intensity of 69.5 - 72%. However, this does not mean that all work should be done at 70% of maximum. In training sessions, an athlete trains with weights in the range of 50-90%.

There are several ways to achieve an average intensity in this range. For example:

Version 1

%RM Reps Sets50 5 160 4 170 3 180 3 290 2 3

Lifts = 24Relative Intensity = 71.5%

Version 2

%RM Reps Sets55 5 165 4 175 3 185 2 4

Lifts = 20Relative Intensity = 72.0%

Version 3

%RM Reps Sets50 5 160 4 170 3 180 3 5

Lifts = 27Relative Intensity = 70.4%

Version 4

%RM Reps Sets50 5 160 5 170 5 175 4 5

Lifts = 35Relative Intensity = 68.6%

Version 5

%RM Reps Sets50 5 160 4 170 3 180 3 285 2 380 3 2

Lifts = 30Relative Intensity = 72.3%

When planning the load in the preparatory period for elite athletes Boris uses stressful loads once every 10 - 14 days:

Maximum strength increases are achieved with loads between 91-100%. Little skeletal muscle hypertrophy occurs and strength growth is primarily the result of the consolidation of the neuromuscular system. The amount of strength improvement decreases with decreasing intensity: however, the growth of muscle mass increases. Note: A discussion of the mechanisms here is outside the scope of this post.

So the training of beginners should promote, first and foremost, an increase in muscle mass. This is because the weight and height data do not correspond with the weight class they are in. For example, at 173cm, a 16-17 year old beginner might weigh 75kg or less. At this height he should be in the 83-93kg weight class. This is one reason why beginners should emphasize lower intensity zones. It will also help them reduce the risk of injury and improve learning the technique of the competitive exercises.

At a height of 173cm, the 16-17 year old beginner at 75kg has a weight-height ratio of 434g/cm (versus 520g/cm for a 90kg lifter at the same height); consequently, the muscle mass per centimeter will be less than needed. This is the reason why the lifter should switch to “his” weight class.

Optimal Heights and Weights

Height

Weight

Height

Weight

145+/-3cm

52kg

168+/-2cm

82.5kg

149+/-3cm

56kg

171+/-2cm

90kg

155+/-2.5cm

60kg

174.5+/-2cm

100kg

160+/-2cm

67.5kg

177.5+/-2cm

110kg

164+/-2cm

75kg

186+/-6cm

110+kg

*Target weights should be at the top of a weight class

All things being equal (the intensity of loading, the work scheme, etc.), an increase in the volume of loading contributes to an increase in a lifter’s muscle mass. Therefore, the lifter’s height/weight data is an important factor for planning the loading. When it is necessary to increase muscle mass the volume of loading is at a maximum. As body weight rises to near the limit of his weight class a greater emphasis is placed on higher intensity zones.

Great read. Now what fat percent is recommended/required/optimal at these weight recommendation?

I think that's individualized. Whatever gives you the best total. I've seen the best results personally around 14%. I've been down to 8% but my lifts went down too. 14% also happens to be where I fall if I just eat whatever I want. That could be coincidental or maybe not.

Great read. Now what fat percent is recommended/required/optimal at these weight recommendation?

I think that's individualized. Whatever gives you the best total. I've seen the best results personally around 14%. I've been down to 8% but my lifts went down too. 14% also happens to be where I fall if I just eat whatever I want. That could be coincidental or maybe not.

My body gets me to 20% if i eat whatever i want. Below 15% year round would be a nice change of pace. Thanks for the reply.

Is there a way to quantify the difference between, say, 3 sets of 5 reps at a given intensity vs. 5x3? 3x5 will obviously feel harder, but is there a significant difference in training effect?

3 sets of 5 reps will take longer to recover from and not just between sets but also between workouts. If you want to quantify it you could look at the lactate build up inside the muscles. You get a linear increase in lactate with each rep. But if you were to look at ammonia build up you get a curvilinear response. If you stay below half the number of a certain rep max, i.e. 3 reps at 8RM, then there is no significant increase in ammonia. That means you can come back and do it again fairly soon.

Is there a way to quantify the difference between, say, 3 sets of 5 reps at a given intensity vs. 5x3? 3x5 will obviously feel harder, but is there a significant difference in training effect?

3 sets of 5 reps will take longer to recover from and not just between sets but also between workouts. If you want to quantify it you could look at the lactate build up inside the muscles. You get a linear increase in lactate with each rep. But if you were to look at ammonia build up you get a curvilinear response. If you stay below half the number of a certain rep max, i.e. 3 reps at 8RM, then there is no significant increase in ammonia. That means you can come back and do it again fairly soon.

Quite interesting comment! I did not know this different relation ammonia - reps, lactate -reps

I want to understand this better, I feel like average intensity would be the result of well organised training and not the goal. If for example the first day of #37 (over 80kg) squat average intensity is 65%, alternatively I could do the format below.

%RM Reps Sets90 1 560 10 3

The average intensity is about the same but clearly it's a different workout and poorly structured.

You could do however many sets and reps you like in the 80-90% range which would blow out your average intensity, but then you could just include a low of intensity sets to offset that and bring the average back to 69.5-72%, surely more is considered when creating the set and rep scheme for a workout.

I want to understand this better, I feel like average intensity would be the result of well organised training and not the goal. If for example the first day of #37 (over 80kg) squat average intensity is 65%, alternatively I could do the format below.

%RM Reps Sets90 1 560 10 3

The average intensity is about the same but clearly it's a different workout and poorly structured.

You could do however many sets and reps you like in the 80-90% range which would blow out your average intensity, but then you could just include a low of intensity sets to offset that and bring the average back to 69.5-72%, surely more is considered when creating the set and rep scheme for a workout.